STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DEYVON T. CHISUMSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KESHOWN K. WOODARD(14-07-1230 AND 14-05-0921, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)
A-5305-14T2/A-5603-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Police responded to a late-night noise complaint at the Crystal Inn motel; officers heard loud music and voices outside Room 221.
- Officers prevented an occupant (Delgado) from leaving the room by using a foot to stop the door; the room renter (Reevey) then invited officers inside.
- Because of the number of people and the motel's high-crime reputation, officers briefly swept the bathroom and balcony for safety, finding no one.
- Officers requested warrant/NCIC checks for all occupants; identification was collected from those present and checks took about twenty minutes. One person gave a false name and was later arrested on a warrant.
- A warrant check for Chisum returned positive; he was arrested and searched, yielding a handgun. After that, officers ordered remaining occupants (including Woodard) to put hands on heads and conducted Terry pat-downs; a handgun was found on Woodard.
- Defendants moved to suppress; trial court denied the motion. Defendants appealed; Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of foot-in-door (blocking door) | Any brief intrusion was cured by guest's consent to enter | Door-blocking was an unlawful seizure that tainted subsequent actions | State conceded the foot placement violated Fourth Amendment, but the court found subsequent voluntary consent (invitation in) attenuated the misconduct so suppression not required |
| Validity of protective sweep (bathroom, balcony) | Sweep was reasonable under totality (outnumbered, high-crime location) | Sweep lacked specific, articulable basis and violated Davilla standard | Court did not decide sweep's legality because sweep did not cause seizure of evidence; no causal link to guns found |
| Continued detention for warrant/NCIC checks (duration) | Warrant checks are permissible and not searches; verifying IDs and running checks for 10 occupants (≈20 min) was reasonable and related to investigation | Detention was unreasonably prolonged after warning; investigation complete when music was turned down | Court held detention reasonably related to the initial investigation, minimally intrusive, and not unreasonably prolonged under totality (≈20 minutes acceptable) |
| Terry pat-downs after Chisum arrest (Woodard) | After gun found on Chisum and one person gave false name, officers had reasonable, particularized suspicion to frisk remaining occupants for safety | No specific basis to believe Woodard was armed/dangerous; frisk was pretextual | Court held totality (high-crime hotel, gun just found, false ID, multiple unrestrained occupants) supported objectively reasonable suspicion to conduct protective pat-downs; frisk lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davilla, 203 N.J. 97 (2010) (protective sweep requires specific and articulable facts showing a safety risk)
- State v. Dickey, 152 N.J. 468 (1998) (duration limits for investigative detentions; 20 minutes can be reasonable if police act diligently)
- State v. Sloane, 193 N.J. 423 (2008) (NCIC/warrant checks during stops permissible if they do not unreasonably extend detention)
- State v. Coles, 218 N.J. 322 (2014) (continued detention must be reasonably related to the justification for initial interference)
- State v. Roach, 172 N.J. 19 (2002) (frisk requires specific, particularized basis that suspect is armed and dangerous)
- State v. Privott, 203 N.J. 16 (2010) (same facts that justify an investigative stop can support a frisk)
- State v. Bernokeits, 423 N.J. Super. 365 (App. Div.) (2011) (reasonableness of investigatory detention assessed under totality of circumstances)